A spokesperson for China’s ministry of defense responded today to reports that the National Security Agency had hacked into Chinese government and corporate networks, saying that the hacks proved the “hypocrisy” of the US government’s accusations of Chinese military hacking of US networks. “We will take effective measures to strengthen our work on Internet security,” Defense Ministry spokesman Geng Yansheng told reporters during a briefing, IDG News Service reported.

According to a New York Times report, the NSA penetrated the network of Chinese network hardware manufacturer Huawei, gaining access to information about the company’s routers and switches and tapping into the communications of corporate executives.

In the past, the US government has made efforts to block the use of Huawei’s hardware over concerns that it could be used in Chinese cyberattacks. As the state English newspaper China Daily pointed out, “The irony here is that what the US has been doing—is still doing—is exactly what it has consistently accused China of doing via Huawei.” China has continued to insist that Huawei is an independent company with no direct ties to the People’s Liberation Army, and the company has offered to show its source code to security officials to prove its hardware has no backdoors for espionage or cyberattacks.

And of course it is. The problem is that the USA has become the world's police and we have to get involved in every conflict for some inexplicable reason.

If our military was only concerned about our own borders rather then projecting power throughout the world, we would be less of a target for foreign powers and wouldn't need to constantly hack into foreign networks.

And of course it is. The problem is that the USA has become the world's police and we have to get involved in every conflict for some inexplicable reason.

It's entirely explicable. It's a result of American Exceptionalism. The evangelicals say that the USA is the moral beacon and blessed by God to carry Christianity to the rest of the world. Manifest Destiny, all over again.

The Chinese had to be expecting an ongoing cyber tangle with the US just as the US expects it from China ans Russia. Of course this does not excuse the behavior from any side. Especially US with the limitless nature of its program targeting civilians around the world.

And of course it is. The problem is that the USA has become the world's police and we have to get involved in every conflict for some inexplicable reason.

If our military was only concerned about our own borders rather then projecting power throughout the world, we would be less of a target for foreign powers and wouldn't need to constantly hack into foreign networks.

Unfortunately we both know that is not how super powers operate. The US has interests all around the world (mostly energy related) that needs to be protected. So far most of our actions can be traced back to those motives.

Of course personally I feel that some of the stuff the US has done over the years in the name of national interest and so called allies is going to come back and bite us in the ass long term (NSA, CIA torture, Irq War and stance on middle eastern monarchies and Israel). But then again I am not a foreign policy expert just a lowly technologist that wants some semblance of privacy and progress of technology.

I wonder who started first? No not random hackers who happen to be Chinese or American. Who started this gov sponsored hacking against other countries? Do we even know? We can hardly blame the party who began fighting back.

Of course the US is full of hypocrisy, double standards to the nth degree and corrupt. For as long as the US dollar remains dominate, they will continue to get away with things no other country can (except Israel).

Don't ya see though? That's why the U.S. chose to not use Huawei equipment. They were just too easy to hack!

- "We can't go with their equipment. It'll be a national security issue."- "Why's that?"- "It only took us a day to break into their corporate network. Cisco took at least 3. That's three times more susceptible to enemy cyber attacks!"

And of course it is. The problem is that the USA has become the world's police and we have to get involved in every conflict for some inexplicable reason.

If our military was only concerned about our own borders rather then projecting power throughout the world, we would be less of a target for foreign powers and wouldn't need to constantly hack into foreign networks.

Unfortunately we both know that is not how super powers operate. The US has interests all around the world (mostly energy related) that needs to be protected. So far most of our actions can be traced back to those motives.

Of course personally I feel that some of the stuff the US has done over the years in the name of national interest and so called allies is going to come back and bite us in the ass long term (NSA, CIA torture, Irq War and stance on middle eastern monarchies and Israel). But then again I am not a foreign policy expert just a lowly technologist that wants some semblance of privacy and progress of technology.

Why do we need to protect foreign interests? That should be the business of foreign countries. While we do need energy, we are artificially cheapening it by using military power to control it. Who knows what other industries might have flourished if the true cost of that foreign energy were carried by the market.

Further, I doubt we saved much, if anything, given just how much blood and treasure has been spent in these last decades as world's police.

I wonder who started first? No not random hackers who happen to be Chinese or American. Who started this gov sponsored hacking against other countries? Do we even know? We can hardly blame the party who began fighting back.

The British and the Polish used computers to crack German codes in WWII. I think that would count.

And of course it is. The problem is that the USA has become the world's police and we have to get involved in every conflict for some inexplicable reason.

If our military was only concerned about our own borders rather then projecting power throughout the world, we would be less of a target for foreign powers and wouldn't need to constantly hack into foreign networks.

Unfortunately we both know that is not how super powers operate. The US has interests all around the world (mostly energy related) that needs to be protected. So far most of our actions can be traced back to those motives.

Of course personally I feel that some of the stuff the US has done over the years in the name of national interest and so called allies is going to come back and bite us in the ass long term (NSA, CIA torture, Irq War and stance on middle eastern monarchies and Israel). But then again I am not a foreign policy expert just a lowly technologist that wants some semblance of privacy and progress of technology.

Why do we need to protect foreign interests? That should be the business of foreign countries. While we do need energy, we are artificially cheapening it by using military power to control it. Who knows what other industries might have flourished if the true cost of that foreign energy were carried by the market.

Further, I doubt we saved much, if anything, given just how much blood and treasure has been spent in these last decades as world's police.

The answer isn't black and white, but just look at all the Crimea news. The US record isn't perfect by any means but if you think the NSA or our stance on some foreign nations is bad, look at China or Russia.

We get involved because all that is needed for evil to triumph is for the good to do nothing.

I think the age of electronic spying is making it economical to perform surveillance on a completely different scale than previously and diplomatic etiquette hasn't caught up. We need social norms on what targets it should be acceptable to spy on. I propose that military organizations, core infrastructure and foreign ministries are be fair game while everyone else is not.

"In the past, the US government has made efforts to block the use of Huawei’s hardware over concerns that it could be used in Chinese cyberattacks. As the state English newspaper China Daily pointed out, “The irony here is that what the US has been doing—is still doing—is exactly what it has consistently accused China of doing via Huawei.” "

I'm not sure I see the hypocrisy nor the irony based on the article. Any hardware could be used in cyberattacks and, regardless of whether you are attacking others, you would not want to be attacked yourself (for comparison: it's not hypocritical to carry a shield when attacking people with a sword). The desire to protect one's own interests does not become ironic because you have worked against the interest of someone else.

Now: Calling the Chinese "bad actors" or such while doing the same would be an issue... and if Huawei turned out to be free of back-doors while the recommended hardware had them, that would be interesting; but the article doesn't lead to those conclusions.

And"We condemn you for hacking us, because we never hacked you.. Except for hacking into your defense contractors and stealing top secret plans for your military weapons like the F-35"- Chinese Government

Both sides do the exact same thing. I think the hypocracy is larger on the Chinese side for making a big deal of it, but both sides do it.

If the US can say that a Teen, sitting in the UK, who "hacks" the Pentagon (Gary McKinnon) should be extradited to the USA for breaking US law... Surely it follows that a US Citizen responsible for hacking a Chineese firm should also be extradited to the China - even if they were sitting in the US at the time.

I think the age of electronic spying is making it economical to perform surveillance on a completely different scale than previously and diplomatic etiquette hasn't caught up. We need social norms on what targets it should be acceptable to spy on. I propose that military organizations, core infrastructure and foreign ministries are be fair game while everyone else is not.

I think the age of electronic spying is making it economical to perform surveillance on a completely different scale than previously and diplomatic etiquette hasn't caught up. We need social norms on what targets it should be acceptable to spy on. I propose that military organizations, core infrastructure and foreign ministries are be fair game while everyone else is not.

That's an awfully naive way of looking at it.

Why? We need to have some kind of standards for when diplomats and heads of state should do the "outraged, outraged, I tell you" routine. Otherwise it just becomes trite and boring.

China doesn't have any room to complain about intrusion attempts, since they have been doing this for more than a decade, that I am aware of. They have absolutely no respect for intellectual property rights, or patents or copyrights, and steal whatever they can get their hands on.

That's not hypocrisy . China is notorious for its hacking activities against the US to steal technology and gain economic advantage . You have to be incredibly naive to believe that a Chinese company is independent in any way from their anti democratic communist government . The day China reforms its government into a democratic system where civil and humans rights are respected, including freedom, is going to be the day the Chinese government can start talking about hypocrisy .

China doesn't have any room to complain about intrusion attempts, since they have been doing this for more than a decade, that I am aware of. They have absolutely no respect for intellectual property rights, or patents or copyrights, and steal whatever they can get their hands on.

The US hacked a company with known links to the Chinese government and military who have been committing major economic and military espionage against the US for a decade.

Unlike China's hacking, none of Huawai's code is going to end up in American products.

I think the age of electronic spying is making it economical to perform surveillance on a completely different scale than previously and diplomatic etiquette hasn't caught up. We need social norms on what targets it should be acceptable to spy on. I propose that military organizations, core infrastructure and foreign ministries are be fair game while everyone else is not.

That's an awfully naive way of looking at it.

Why? We need to have some kind of standards for when diplomats and heads of state should do the "outraged, outraged, I tell you" routine. Otherwise it just becomes trite and boring.

Boeing is a big contractor for the US government and has developed a bunch of planes for them.

Are countries not allowed to take a peak at what Boeing's doing just because they're not a "military organization, core infrastructure and/or foreign ministry"? The US hands out tons of contracts to non-government agencies on a regular basis.

*Any* company in the US could be developing something for militaristic purposes, and as such, might have information that prying eyes might want to see, and for good reason. Some of these contracts they hand out aren't exactly public knowledge either, so to even find out who's developing what for the US you'd need to be doing some spying to find out in the first place.

And of course it is. The problem is that the USA has become the world's police and we have to get involved in every conflict for some inexplicable reason.

It's entirely explicable. It's a result of American Exceptionalism. The evangelicals say that the USA is the moral beacon and blessed by God to carry Christianity to the rest of the world. Manifest Destiny, all over again.

I don't have a problem with the US investigating whether the Chinese who have been hacking US government, military as well as private companies en masse, are using Huawai a company with know links to the PLA. for that purpose.

I have not idea how Christianity, "exceptionalism", and every other bizarre idea concocted by the far-left come into play.

China doesn't have any room to complain about intrusion attempts, since they have been doing this for more than a decade, that I am aware of. They have absolutely no respect for intellectual property rights, or patents or copyrights, and steal whatever they can get their hands on.

The point is the neither does the US, and we're the ones doing the complaining.

And of course it is. The problem is that the USA has become the world's police and we have to get involved in every conflict for some inexplicable reason.

If our military was only concerned about our own borders rather then projecting power throughout the world, we would be less of a target for foreign powers and wouldn't need to constantly hack into foreign networks.

Unfortunately we both know that is not how super powers operate. The US has interests all around the world (mostly energy related) that needs to be protected. So far most of our actions can be traced back to those motives.

Of course personally I feel that some of the stuff the US has done over the years in the name of national interest and so called allies is going to come back and bite us in the ass long term (NSA, CIA torture, Irq War and stance on middle eastern monarchies and Israel). But then again I am not a foreign policy expert just a lowly technologist that wants some semblance of privacy and progress of technology.

Why do we need to protect foreign interests? That should be the business of foreign countries. While we do need energy, we are artificially cheapening it by using military power to control it. Who knows what other industries might have flourished if the true cost of that foreign energy were carried by the market.

Further, I doubt we saved much, if anything, given just how much blood and treasure has been spent in these last decades as world's police.

You are preaching to the choir my friend. I agree with what you say however I am just stating "what is" as opposed to "what should be".

I would assume any proprietary software is likely to compromised by some security agency. So accusations by the US that China, Russia, or any other country has compromised code is the pot calling the kettle black. The imbeciles in Washington should shut up and stop subtracting from the sum total of human knowledge when they speak.

This doesn't excuse NSA spying. But don't for a moment think that the Chinese have clean hands. This is just the standard shaming that always happens when one side catches the other. E.g., the U2 spy plane over the USSR.

I think the age of electronic spying is making it economical to perform surveillance on a completely different scale than previously and diplomatic etiquette hasn't caught up. We need social norms on what targets it should be acceptable to spy on. I propose that military organizations, core infrastructure and foreign ministries are be fair game while everyone else is not.

That's an awfully naive way of looking at it.

Why? We need to have some kind of standards for when diplomats and heads of state should do the "outraged, outraged, I tell you" routine. Otherwise it just becomes trite and boring.

Boeing is a big contractor for the US government and has developed a bunch of planes for them.

Are countries not allowed to take a peak at what Boeing's doing just because they're not a "military organization, core infrastructure and/or foreign ministry"? The US hands out tons of contracts to non-government agencies on a regular basis.

*Any* company in the US could be developing something for militaristic purposes, and as such, might have information that prying eyes might want to see, and for good reason. Some of these contracts they hand out aren't exactly public knowledge either, so to even find out who's developing what for the US you'd need to be doing some spying to find out in the first place.

Well, "military organization" and "core infrastructure" is open to interpretation. Boeing, Cisco and JPMorgan Chase are all either core infrastructure or military organizations. The Washington Post, on the other hand, is obviously not.

And of course it is. The problem is that the USA has become the world's police and we have to get involved in every conflict for some inexplicable reason.

If our military was only concerned about our own borders rather then projecting power throughout the world, we would be less of a target for foreign powers and wouldn't need to constantly hack into foreign networks.

Unfortunately we both know that is not how super powers operate. The US has interests all around the world (mostly energy related) that needs to be protected. So far most of our actions can be traced back to those motives.

Of course personally I feel that some of the stuff the US has done over the years in the name of national interest and so called allies is going to come back and bite us in the ass long term (NSA, CIA torture, Irq War and stance on middle eastern monarchies and Israel). But then again I am not a foreign policy expert just a lowly technologist that wants some semblance of privacy and progress of technology.

Why do we need to protect foreign interests? That should be the business of foreign countries. While we do need energy, we are artificially cheapening it by using military power to control it. Who knows what other industries might have flourished if the true cost of that foreign energy were carried by the market.

Further, I doubt we saved much, if anything, given just how much blood and treasure has been spent in these last decades as world's police.

The answer isn't black and white, but just look at all the Crimea news. The US record isn't perfect by any means but if you think the NSA or our stance on some foreign nations is bad, look at China or Russia.

We get involved because all that is needed for evil to triumph is for the good to do nothing.

I don't think the binary view of "we good, they evil" is very helpful anymore. There are a whole lot of shades of grey, and the US government has its share of darker shades just like any government in the world today. Just because that is true, though, doesn't mean we should stop holding ourselves to a higher standard - or that we shouldn't get upset when that standard is ignored.

I think Marvel did a very smart thing with the recent movies, and giving Captain America an existential crisis in seeing the direct differences between 1944 and today. Wondering if the US is really the paragon of freedom and liberty that he remembered it as being is a timely plot device, and definitely is food for thought.

Sean Gallagher / Sean is Ars Technica's IT Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland.